Re: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6

"John Cruz (johcruz)" <johcruz@cisco.com> Fri, 30 July 2010 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <johcruz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E273A68CF for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Sr4hOHxaFLu for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648A93A687B for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABP2UkyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACgJnGmMJsLhTkEhBWHIw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,289,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="566394855"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2010 22:59:43 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6UMxhdv002309; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:59:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-22a.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.81]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:59:43 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <9D0602B62D632D499E0A26CBCDA74A7D0841D6C5@xmb-sjc-22a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C535212.6040303@mesh.ad.jp>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
Thread-Index: AcswNpKwvdy+vIdrRmium6VGPKe35wABBUjg
References: <4C52C8B5.8080601@mesh.ad.jp> <9D0602B62D632D499E0A26CBCDA74A7D0841D4D6@xmb-sjc-22a.amer.cisco.com> <4C535212.6040303@mesh.ad.jp>
From: "John Cruz (johcruz)" <johcruz@cisco.com>
To: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2010 22:59:43.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6058930:01CB303A]
Cc: randy@psg.com, narten@us.ibm.com, brian@innovationslab.net, vrrp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:59:19 -0000

Hi,

> >
> > The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
> > global scope.
> 
> Can you point to a specific phrase in the RFC where it says so?
> I could not find any mention of the word global in the RFC
> nor any RFC2119 words relating to scopes of addresses.


[John] The statement that the first virtual address must be
a link-local addresses implies that the other address can
have global scope. As you mention, global scope is not
explicitly mentioned.

John


> 
> Regards,
> Seiichi
> 
> >
> > Regards
> > John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vrrp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
> > Of
> >> Seiichi Kawamura
> >> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:42 AM
> >> To: vrrp@ietf.org
> >> Cc: randy@psg.com; narten@us.ibm.com; brian@innovationslab.net
> >> Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
> >>
> > I've been discussing this with a few people this week
> > and thought that it was worth asking this list.
> >
> > rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9
> >
> >    For IPv6, the first address must be the IPv6 link-local address
> >    associated with the virtual router.
> >
> > It implies that a global address can be associated
> > with the virtual router, but some routers
> > implement link-local capability only becuase only the
> > link-local address is mentioned here.
> >
> > The problem is, operators need global scope addresses with
> > virtual routers and we have to ask each vendor to
> > implement it if they have not already done so. The main
> > reason we need this is becausewe need to monitor the address
> > from a remote network as we do with IPv4.
> >
> > I just joined this list, but can someone
> > tell me what was the thinking was  behind not
> > mentioning global addresses in this RFC?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Regards,
> > Seiichi
> >
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> vrrp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxTUhEACgkQcrhTYfxyMkKL1wCgjlVy8g4RhiMF1Upq++3zs3Vi
> nCkAn34uQUGI4XJtaFXuh+i0C+k2gsJR
> =OL8C
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----